New Geography

Blog

  • Last of the Bohemians

    When I moved to Los Angeles 30 years ago, Ocean Front Walk in Venice Beach looked like a hippie parody.  It had a counter-cultural veneer, but didn’t rate as an authentic bohemian hot spot.

    Contrast, for example, with New York’s East Village with its revolutionaries, junkies, artists and various iconoclasts living side-by-side.

    The weekend spectacle at Venice – vendors, performers and “street people” showing off to crowds of tourists – struck me as self-conscious and phony. Plus, I could never call Ocean Front Walk a “board walk” because (unlike Brighton Beach and Coney Island) there was No Board.

    Since then, of course, New York has been “cleaned up.” Now Tompkins Square is family-friendly and the old walk-ups are inhabited by urban professionals worried about layoffs and declining property values.

    Times have changed.  The gulf between haves and have-nots is widening.  Living on the edge is not just a life-style choice.  “Drop-outs” need somewhere to go.

    These days I see Ocean Front Walk in Venice as more a refuge than a counter-cultural carnival.  With overnighters climbing out of their sleeping bags each morning, it’s a pretty good location for people without money.

    Where else should they live?

    I understand why local residents are advocating that something be done to make Ocean Front Walk safer and more sanitary.  With some calling for a police “crack down.”

    But now that the “tune-in, turn-on, drop-out” sub-culture is a history text book sidebar, I’m glad there is, at least, someplace warm for the dispossessed to hang out.

    Here at Venice Beach, where the continental U.S. ends, could be the last stop for these new bohemians.

  • A Little Snooki in the French Presidential Campaign

    As a reality television series, it’s hard to beat the prime-time adventures of the French presidential election; as endless as the Republican primaries, but racier than Snooki’s antics on “Jersey Shore”. This ought to give pause to anyone who is relying on Parisian politics to save the European Union.

    To ensure that the Élysée Palace is inhabited occasionally by bigamists (François Mitterand), megalomaniacs (Charles de Gaulle), diamond smugglers (Valéry d’Estaing), or influence peddlers (Jacques Chirac), the presidential electoral system works like this: In the first round on April 22nd, candidates from a diverse number of parties across the spectrum will face off. If none of the candidates get more than 50 percent of the vote (unlikely), a runoff is then held two weeks later, featuring the top two finishers of round one.

    In the current cycle, the major candidates are President Nicolas Sarkozy (right of center; best imagined as a tough detective on “Law and Order”), François Hollande (socialist; looks like Seinfeld’s friend George Costanza), Marine Le Pen (far-right nationalist; uses the word deportation as a noun, verb, adjective, and term of endearment), François Beyrou (centrist; keen on the moral purity of centrism), and Jean-Luc Mélenchon (far left; speaks for those whom Le Pen would deport).

    According to the latest polls, which are notoriously inaccurate, Sarkozy should pull the most votes in the first round—followed by Hollande, Mélenchon, Le Pen, and Bayrou—but not enough to win outright.

    Enthusiasm for Hollande is tepid, and hardline voters, fearing he is a margarine socialist, might ditch him to vote for the florid, far left candidate, Mélenchon, although it is doubtful that Mélenchon would ever place second. In the runoff, if Sarkozy were to face Hollande, the forecasts are that the socialist candidate would beat the standing president, 54 – 46 percent.

    Campaigning in France takes place on nightly news programs that feature breathless, non-stop reports about the day’s political events. Sarkozy loves big indoor rallies in halls that look like Madison Square Garden, where only his supporters are admitted. They madly wave “La France Forte” placards (“For a Strong France”), while he denounces illegal immigration, Islamic terrorists, and economic stagnation. He has even campaigned against himself, saying, if re-elected, he would be “a different president.”

    The mundane facts of the campaign don’t explain why the election has become a prime-time drama, with most talk shows spending hours on the candidates’ love lives or on the scandal of the week.

    When he ran for president in 2007, Sarko was married to Cécelia Sarkozy. They met when, as mayor of Neuilly in Paris, he officiated at her first wedding. Three years later, they were a couple.

    During the presidential campaign in 2007, however, she told one interviewer that perhaps she might not vote. After her husband won, she acted bored at the thought of moving into the Élysée Palace (“all those rooms and servants…”), and famously blew off a Bush family cookout at Kennebunkport when she found out that it would involve spending the day with her husband.

    Those Sarkozys divorced. Cécelia said Sarko conceived of political office as a platform on which to seduce women, including some not dressed up as brides. Sarko brooded for about an afternoon and then took up with the singer, songwriter, and supermodel fashionista Carla Bruni, who sees herself as this generation’s Jacqueline Kennedy.

    Not to be outdone on “How the President Met Your Mother,” François Hollande has four children with Ségolène Royal, the socialist party candidate for president in 2007. Imagine a relationship—they never officially married—in which both partners want to be president of France? Ségo lost to Sarko in 2007. During that election it turned out that life-partner Hollande was “campaigning” with a Madame de Pompadour-like magazine journalist, who now might become the first official live-in girlfriend at the Élysée Palace.

    Although France is not a country that bores easily on the subject of sex, when voters are looking for other electoral diversions (why dwell on recession, illegal immigrants, angry Arabs, or the Greek invoice?), the newspapers are ready with a host of tabloid scandals.

    The mud sticking to the sides of Sarko’s Nixonian smile is his relationship with the rich heiress of the L’Oréal fortune, Liliane Bettencourt, who is suspected of having financed his 2007 campaign with envelopes that were stuffed from a Swiss bank account. Her bagman has been arrested, and the accountant is singing to the judges, but as a sitting president Sarkozy is immune from prosecution. Nor, until he leaves office, does he even have to answer questions about the bulging envelopes.

    Were the Bettencourt scandal a Burgundy wine, the review notes on the shelf might read, “Lush hints of the Swiss alps, with just the right amount of perfume and hidden pleasure, yet classically French. Drink now or hold until the election.”

    Because the socialists don’t want to go into pre-election prime-time sweeps without a scandal of their own, they can always rely on former party chief Dominque Strauss-Kahn, the excommunicated head of the International Monetary Fund, who on a slow day for news can be counted on to harass women, cavort with prostitutes, or land in jail, with each headline reminding the French that, save for the odd rape charge, he could well have been their next president.

    The latest DSK charges involve call girls who provided pleasures at a Lille hotel, and whom, when the mood and cash were right, flew off to far-flung DSK soirées. There, the president-in-waiting together with some (socialist?) corporate donors would loosen their chains and unite with these workers. (Marx would have approved.)

    In court, DSK’s lawyer claimed his client didn’t know the ladies were escorts because he only saw them in a natural state, when it’s harder to discern the “provenance” of the “goods,” which is how Strauss-Kahn referred to the women.

    Alas, scandals are included in a French presidential election only for entertainment. Neither sacks of cash nor tales of sexual escapades will determine how people vote. The working classes, based in large cities, vote for the left. Agrarian, conservative France guards its pocketbook and votes for the right. Centrism isn’t a French concept.

    Sarko’s chance is that he appeals to the middle right, a law-and-order president angry at Islam who has the backs of shopkeepers and farmers, all of whom are tired of strikes and lazy functionaries.

    Hollande — if he makes it to the second round, where he could well beat Sarkozy — can point to an incumbent who is presiding over a stagnating economy with high unemployment. But Hollande’s sonorous campaign might make voters long for someone more passionate, even Sarko, who each day reminds the electorate of some new red scare.

    Marine Le Pen, for her part, has made it clear that she would not put up with any more nonsense—not with rioting Algerians, not with bankrupt Greeks, not with German alliances.

    Still, nonsense and naughtiness might be exactly what the French are looking for, and that raises this question: Are the French toast?

    Photo: Nicolas Sarkozy at Davos, 2011; copyright World Economic Forum

    Matthew Stevenson is the author of Remembering the Twentieth Century Limited, a collection of historical travel essays, and recently edited Rules of the Game: The Best Sports Writing from Harper’s Magazine. His next book is Whistle-Stopping America.

  • The Right Steps to a Post-College Job

    What will become of today’s middle class college students after they graduate? Opposing points of view come, on one side, from a voice of the education establishment, the American Association of Colleges & Universities (AACU), and on the other from rhetorical bomb thrower and author Aaron Clarey Worthless: The Young Person’s Indispensible Guide to Choosing the Right Major.

    Clarey asks: Who has your family hired recently? Whenever you buy a car, or drive on a road, or use a computer you indirectly hire an engineer. And when you put money in a bank, or go to the doctor, or consult an accountant, those people provide a useful service. But when did you ever hire a person competent in feminist theories? When did you last hire a sociologist or a philosopher, or a historian? Chances are – never – unless you were forced to by the involuntary expenditure of your tax dollars. Those degrees, according to Clarey, are worthless.

    If Clarey is dismissive of intellectual pursuits, the AACU is the opposite. Part of its justification for liberal education:

    “Many of the questions shaping higher education today spring from an interdependent world community in the midst of profound social, political, economic, and cultural realignments. Systems are being redesigned, relationships renegotiated, and modes of commerce and communication transformed. The problems we face—as individuals and societies—are urgent and increasingly defined as global: environment and development, health and disease, conflict and insecurity, poverty and hopelessness. Similarly, the goals of democracy, freedom, equity, justice, and peace are increasingly understood to encompass the globe and play out across multiple and complex cultures. Such global challenges cut across academic disciplines and require perspectives beyond the training and experience of most faculty members.”

    While Clarey is an engaging and entertaining writer, the AACU webpage is turgid. Clarey writes for students and their parents; the AACU page is directed to college administrators and faculty. Beyond that, two words pepper the AACU website, but appear not at all in Clarey’s book: “globalization” and “21st Century.”

    Clarey definitely has the easier job when it comes to entertainment value. He scores a lot of points ridiculing the women’s studies major, a pinata full of belly laughs. And surely, if any major is worthless it is women’s studies. That’s just too easy a target, and it’s hard to give Clarey much credit for the criticisms.

    He’s on much weaker ground when he attacks historically legitimate disciplines such as English, philosophy, or history. “English has got to be the most worthless degree in the entire English-speaking world. The reason why should be blindingly obvious. You already speak English.” This is a silly argument, however entertaining. The problem with English is not that it is “worthless,” but rather that it has very little economic value. It’s been oversold – there are way too many English majors for the market to absorb.

    The AACU has a much harder task: defending the value of the liberal arts. The difficulty of the read thus roughly corresponds to the difficulty of the task. Their webpage underplays any claim of direct economic benefit from a liberal education. The supposed benefits lie in citizenship, global awareness, and political sensibility, etc. But an argument for liberal education that ignores earning a living is a weak argument.

    For all the talk about globalization, the AACU clearly has no clue as to what it really is. For college students, it means only one thing: lower salaries. Exceptions include those rare geniuses in business or the culture that beat the odds. But for the remaining 99%, a college degree is a commodity. They are competing against similarly educated people in China, India, Brazil, and around the world. All they have to offer the marketplace is a skill – surgery, law, accounting, programming, writing, etc. – that they must perform at least as well and as cheaply as the competition or a computer.

    For an example of the value of a liberal arts degree, a WSJ article describes “Eric Probola, who got a bachelor’s degree in global cultural studies from Point Park University in Pittsburgh in 2010, accepted an administrative assistant’s job at a nonprofit there for less than $30,000 a year.” Many, many BA graduates are working as secretaries, plumbers, and pizza deliverers. I know more who are going back to school to get nursing degrees. Why didn’t they do it right the first time?

    The AACU uses the term “21st Century” as shorthand for “we’re hip and we’re planning for the future.” Clarey, on the other hand, doesn’t account for the future at all. His solution is that students should major in disciplines that are well paid today, and he chooses engineering as the best example.

    Ten years ago he might have suggested law school, when it really was a ticket into the upper middle class. Since then, both technology and globalization have put paid to that. The same trends may occur in engineering and other disciplines. Clarey doesn’t address this possibility at all.

    In response, I’m guessing that he might say something like, ‘OK, I’m sorry about the lawyers. I really am. And maybe you’re right that ten or twenty years from now engineers will suffer the same fate. I can’t predict the future, and neither can you. But I do know that a student graduating in engineering today will move into a well-paid, upper middle class job. A student graduating in Environmental Policy Studies, with a senior thesis entitled “The Role of Women Farmers on Environmental Sustainability in Southern Malawi,” will not.’ Fair enough. Still, Clarey would benefit from studying the Three Laws of Future Employment.

    The AACU argument goes something like this:

    1. Globalization means that problems (climate change, human rights, etc.) that once were local become global.
    2. Governments, NGOs, and the United Nations, along with multinational corporations, will all take steps to address these pressing concerns.
    3. Students majoring in the liberal arts will increasingly find jobs managing global polity.
    4. Thus students who understand culture, politics, people, language, and science will be in demand.

    In a word, the liberal arts represent the future.

    In my view every step in this chain of reasoning is flawed. But the fatal flaw is economic. Where will governments, NGOs or the UN get the money to hire all these liberal arts students? Are American pensioners going to sacrifice their social security checks to employ the Malawi expert above, or are Malawi farmers going to chip in part of their $3/day profit for the purpose? Clarey is right: most liberal arts graduates will not earn a middle class living. Economically speaking, the degrees are worthless.

    Photo of Student on Steps from the University of Denver.

    Daniel Jelski is a professor of chemistry at SUNY New Paltz, and formerly served as the dean of science and engineering.

  • Making Stuff Up at Atlantic Cities

    Editor Sommer Mathis over at The Atlantic Cities has taken to making stuff up. In a recent post she reported on a dispute in the city of Seattle over minimum parking requirements relating to multi-unit buildings. She said:

    Defenders of suburban-style development like Wendell Cox and Joel Kotkin would argue that these young people just don’t understand how their lives and desires are going to change once they start families. Single-family, detached homes with a quarter acre of land and two cars in the garage are suddenly going to look a lot better to all these idealistic, bicycle riding twenty-somethings once the reality of parenthood sets in.

    Kotkin and Cox also worry that developers and city planners rushing to meet the youth-driven demand for denser housing options that don’t necessarily include parking are shooting themselves in the foot.

    The only problem is that I have never commented on minimum parking requirements. I checked with Joel Kotkin and he advises that he has never covered the issue.

    Mathis continues (after an citing a quote by Joel Kotkin article in Forbes):

    What’s funny about these assumptions is their total lack of faith in the free market.

    Of course, since our alleged positions on minimum parking requirements are figments of Mathis’ imagination, her "free market" conclusion misses the mark. Indeed, the most destructive impact on urban land markets today is urban growth boundaries and "winner picking" land use restrictions that deny people their preferences (as my Wall Street Journal piece, California’s War on Suburbia, argued on Saturday). I am most concerned about these because of their potential for hampering the metropolitan economy, interfering with upward mobility and increasing poverty (I suspect Joel would agree). Moreover, young households soon figure out that they need more than the 4th floor (or 40th floor) balcony to raise a child.

  • Alternative Growth Paths for Sydney: A New Report and its Implications

    Population growth in Australia is double the world average and the New South Wales Department of Planning has projected that the population of the Sydney region will increase by 57,000 people annually. How will these extra people be housed?  The NSW Government follows the usual doctrines based on higher population densities. Its planning policy, known as The Metropolitan Strategy, works on locating some 70% of new dwellings within existing urban communities (in-fill) and 30% in new greenfield sites. 

    This policy is implemented by orders issued by the New South Wales Minister of Planning and imposed by ministerial fiat which are neither tabled nor debated in parliament.

    To achieve this 70/30 strategy the Department of Planning in effect has placed a restrictive growth boundary around Sydney to force higher-densities into existing residential areas. Greenfield land release has been reduced from an historic 10,000 lots per year to less than 2,000. This has caused a severe land shortage. 

    These policies are undemocratic and widely resented. What is more, the government has not justified them in terms of public good.  Indeed they might find that hard to do. For example, Australian studies show that greenhouse gas emissions per person are higher in high-density living, congestion is worse, human health is compromised, the costs of electricity, gas and water services increase, heritage conservation areas valued by the community are often lost and irreplaceable urban patchwork of greenery and wildlife within the city is decimated.

    The CIE Report

    The previous Labor Government commissioned a report on possible planning alternatives for Sydney. This report, by the Centre for International Economics (CIE) titled The Benefits and Costs of Alternative Growth Paths for Sydney: Economic, Social and Environmental Impacts was delivered back in December 2010. It has only now been released by the current government. 

    The report discusses three different scenarios for Sydney.  These portray alternatives of 90%, 70% and 50% of new housing to be built in existing urban areas (in-fill) – and correspondingly 10%, 30% and 50% in greenfield sites.

    The report compares the costs of the 90/10 and 50/50 scenarios with those of the current Metropolitan Strategy 70/30 ratio over a twenty-five-year period. It finds the cost differences between them are comparatively trivial. When compared to the Metropolitan Strategy 70/30 policy, the annual non-discounted cost saving per new dwelling for the 90/10 scenario is only A$151.  For the 50/50 scenario the additional annual cost per new dwelling is found to be A$950.

    This report contains two significant flaws. The first is an implicit assumption that the price of land will be the same for all three scenarios. It also fails to properly consider additional cost factors.

    Price of Land

    Each scenario examined changes the amount of new land that would be released for development. When compared with the current baseline 70/30 strategy, the 90/10 scenario would require even greater restrictions on the release of new housing land and hence an even greater land shortage. By contrast, the 50/50 scenario would allow for a more generous release of new land and hence more land available for construction.  The immutable laws of supply and demand ensure that the degree of land restriction would significantly affect the cost of housing in each scenario, completely swamping the relatively minor cost differences due to other factors.

    Incredibly, the report appears to fail to take the effect of relative scarcity on costs into consideration. It simply assumes that the price of land will remain the same for each scenario.

    This is significant because the report includes in its calculations factors that are highly dependent on the cost of land. If the report’s findings are to be credible, the variation of these factors caused by land price variation in each scenario examined should also be taken into account.  When land is scarce high-density developers can make greater profits as they have less competition from low-priced houses and landholders can get higher prices for their land than would be the case otherwise. 

    Other Costs

    The report alleges that electricity consumption is greater in houses than it is in apartments. This is incorrect. Studies show that consumption per capita is greater in apartments. It appears that the data the report relies on does not take into account the consumption of electricity common to the whole apartment block such as lifts and lighting common areas such as foyers and car spaces. 

    The report also does not take into account costs to existing residents arising from forcing high-density into communities originally designed for low-density. These include:

    • The impact on a single-residential property that has high-rise built next to it. This can involve theft of amenity: new in-fill residents look over gardens of existing residents while the latter have to look onto unsightly structures, and suffer lack of privacy and overshadowing.
    • Congestion. Existing residents have to suffer from increasingly congested streets and shortage of street parking.
    • Shortage of recreational facilities. As more vacant land is built upon in a community originally designed for low-density, it becomes difficult to secure new open areas to service the needs of the additional population at a reasonable standard.
    • Reduction in housing choice, particularly for families.  Most infill development consists of apartments which are not suitable for bringing up young children.  Indeed the majority of those currently living in apartments do not do so by choice. A survey indicates multi-story apartments are not even acceptable to most people wishing to downsize, if they have other choices such as smaller single residential houses or villas.
    • Reduction in biodiversity. When gardens and open space are replaced with unit blocks this has a severe effect on urban plant and animal life.
    • Heritage items valued by the community such as traditional period architect designed housing are often lost.
    • Atmospheric pollution.  There is a local effect on residents of atmospheric pollution in high-density areas.  This is due to higher traffic densities and to less volume of air being available for the dilution and dispersion of pollutants.

    If these considerations had been quantified into the report’s calculations, they would have changed its overall findings.

    Conclusions

    As is not unusual in reports by density advocates throughout the English-speaking world, the report’s findings are marred by the fact that significant factors are omitted.  If costs and benefits were fully accounted for, including the costs and benefits borne by existing residents, an already weak case for emphasising densification over fringe development would vanish.

    As we have seen, even with the flawed accounting used in the report, the magnitude of the cost differences that it finds between its three scenarios is trivial. These tiny differences make the unpopular Metropolitan Strategy 70/30 policy hard to justify, and any intensification of this strategy to 90/10 impossible to justify.   Cost differences of either A$151 or A$950 are small compared to the price that people have to pay for a house (the median price in Sydney is A$650,000). These insignificant figures need to be considered in the light of providing people with the opportunity of living in the housing style of their choice.

    If costs and benefits were to be fully accounted for, including those borne by existing residents, the case for a policy of enforced densification cannot be supported.   When asked voters want less rather than more densification.

    High land prices due to restrictive land-releases are already making housing unaffordable for the next generation.  Unwanted high-rise development represents theft from the community, reducing the amenity of existing residents and transfers that value to property developers without recompense. This theft is aided and abetted by the policies of the State Government. Moreover, it continues to result in well-publicised favours being granted to developers with connections to government.

    The Metropolitan Strategy needs to be replaced. A good start would be for the New South Wales government to adopt the suggested 50/50 strategy as the first step towards reform.  The provision of more choice will allow people to demonstrate whether they prefer to live in high-density or in lower cost, more spacious housing with a garden in the suburbs.

    (Dr) Tony Recsei has a background in chemistry and is an environmental consultant. Since retiring he has taken an interest in community affairs and is president of the Save Our Suburbs community group which opposes over-development forced onto communities by the New South Wales State Government.

    Sydney suburb photo by BigStockPhoto.com.

  • The Urban US: Growth and Decline

    The urban population of the United States is now 249 million, according to the 2010 Census, 81 percent of the total. This is impressive, and not all surprising for a large developed economy. Yet the urban population — meaning cities, suburbs and exurbs — is not everything. And in many ways for everything from food, resources and recreation, the urban areas still depend on the nearly sixty million who live in rural America

    It is fascinating to review how American demography has changed over the last decade. So I will briefly look at some obvious points, such as the largest, most important, places, those that grew the most absolutely and relatively, and those that, on the contrary, declined.

    Our Giant Metropolises 

    The Census is very generous, probably way too generous, in their defining the outer limits of our urbanized areas (agglomerations with over 50,000 people). They tend to respect the independence of historically separate places, which from a satellite view would appear to be part of a united larger agglomeration. For example, New York, as defined, is huge enough but dense settlement goes far beyond its census limits. (I’ll take a look at conurbations, like Megalopolis, in a separate discussion). The 30 giants are shown in Table 1. The top three, New York, Los Angeles and Chicago have kept their positions for decades, but  story of more recent times has been the upsurge of Southern giants of Houston, Dallas, Miami, Atlanta, and of course, Washington, DC. Detroit is still in the top 15, but its position has fallen to 11th, while other historic places like Cleveland, St. Louis and Pittsburgh have dropped into the second set of 15.

    Table 1: Largest US Urbanized Areas
    Urbanized Area Name  2010 Population 2000 Population Change % Change
    1 New York–Newark, NY–NJ–CT 18,351,295 17,799,861 551,434 3.10
    2 Los Angeles–Long Beach–Anaheim, CA 12,150,996 11,789,487 361,509 3.07
    3 Chicago, IL–IN 8,608,208 8,307,904 300,304 3.61
    4 Miami, FL 5,502,379 4,919,036 583,343 11.86
    5 Philadelphia, PA–NJ–DE–MD 5,441,567 5,149,079 292,488 5.68
    6 Dallas–Fort Worth–Arlington, TX 5,121,892 4,145,659 976,233 23.55
    7 Houston, TX 4,944,332 3,822,509 1,121,823 29.35
    8 Washington, DC–VA–MD 4,586,770 3,933,920 652,850 16.60
    9 Atlanta, GA 4,515,419 3,499,840 1,015,579 29.02
    10 Boston, MA–NH–RI 4,181,019 4,032,484 148,535 3.68
    11 Detroit, MI 3,734,090 3,903,377 -169,287 -4.34
    12 Phoenix–Mesa, AZ 3,629,114 2,907,049 722,065 24.84
    13 San Francisco–Oakland, CA 3,281,212 3,228,605 52,607 1.63
    14 Seattle, WA 3,059,393 2,712,205 347,188 12.80
    15 San Diego, CA 2,956,746 2,674,436 282,310 10.56
    90,064,432 82,825,451
    16 Minneapolis–St. Paul, MN–WI 2,650,890 2,388,593 262,297 10.98
    17 Tampa–St. Petersburg, FL 2,441,770 2,062,339 379,431 18.40
    18 Denver–Aurora, CO 2,374,203 1,984,889 389,314 19.61
    19 Baltimore, MD 2,203,663 2,076,354 127,309 6.13
    20 St. Louis, MO–IL 2,150,706 2,077,662 73,044 3.52
    21 San Juan, PR 2,148,346 2,216,616 -68,270 -3.08
    22 Riverside–San Bernardino, CA 1,932,666 1,506,816 425,850 28.26
    23 Las Vegas–Henderson, NV 1,886,011 1,314,357 571,654 43.49
    24 Portland, OR–WA 1,849,898 1,583,138 266,760 16.85
    25 Cleveland, OH 1,780,673 1,786,647 -5,974 -0.33
    26 San Antonio, TX 1,758,210 1,327,554 430,656 32.44
    27 Pittsburgh, PA 1,733,853 1,753,136 -19,283 -1.10
    28 Sacramento, CA 1,723,634 1,393,498 330,136 23.69
    29 San Jose, CA 1,664,496 1,538,312 126,184 8.20
    30 Cincinnati, OH–KY–IN 1,624,827 1,503,262 121,565 8.09
    29,923,846 26,513,173

    Cities with the Largest Gains  

    Urbanized areas which gained the most population over the last decade are listed in Table 2. These numbers are truly large; these are clear leaders in “population power”. I’ll first draw our attention to the five cities which are in the top 35 in both absolute growth and in percent growth. These include Temecula-Murrieta, CA (most folks will never have even heard of it: think inland sunshine of Riverside county); Charlotte and Raleigh, NC; Cape Coral, FL (again, huh?); and Austin, TX (you were thinking Dallas or Houston? See below).

    Temecula-Murietta : 25th absolute growth, 6th % growth               
    Charlotte : 9th and 19th
    Raleigh : 18th and 21st               
    Cape Coral : 30th and 27th  
    Austin : 10th and 34th

    North Carolina wins the race for the fastest growing areas.  But in sheer growth in people, the winners are (Table 2) Houston, Atlanta, Dallas, Phoenix, Washington, Miami, Las Vegas (despite the recession), New York, Charlotte and Austin. Giant New York is the only non-sunbelt place in the elite, and it had a quite slow rate of growth (3%). The next places outside the southern tier are Denver (13th) and Seattle (18th).  The total absolute growth in these top 15 cities was a phenomenal 7.24 million, a rate of growth of 8.7 %. For the top 30 urbanized areas, the growth was 10.3 million, with a percent growth of 9.7 – the same as the rate of growth of the nation. This includes slow growing but still very big places like Los Angeles (growth displaced to its satellites), Philadelphia, Chicago, Indianapolis, Portland and Minneapolis.

    Table 2: Largest Absolute Change in US Urbanized Areas
    Urbanized Area Name  2010 Population 2000 Population Change % Change
    1 Houston, TX 4,944,332 3,822,509 1,121,823 29.35
    2 Atlanta, GA 4,515,419 3,499,840 1,015,579 29.02
    3 Dallas–Fort Worth–Arlington, TX 5,121,892 4,145,659 976,233 23.55
    4 Phoenix–Mesa, AZ 3,629,114 2,907,049 722,065 24.84
    5 Washington, DC–VA–MD 4,586,770 3,933,920 652,850 16.60
    6 Miami, FL 5,502,379 4,919,036 583,343 11.86
    7 Las Vegas–Henderson, NV 1,886,011 1,314,357 571,654 43.49
    8 New York–Newark, NY–NJ–CT 18,351,295 17,799,861 551,434 3.10
    9 Charlotte, NC–SC 1,249,442 758,927 490,515 64.63
    10 Austin, TX 1,362,416 901,920 460,496 51.06
    11 San Antonio, TX 1,758,210 1,327,554 430,656 32.44
    12 Riverside–San Bernardino, CA 1,932,666 1,506,816 425,850 28.26
    13 Denver–Aurora, CO 2,374,203 1,984,889 389,314 19.61
    14 Tampa–St. Petersburg, FL 2,441,770 2,062,339 379,431 18.40
    15 Los Angeles–Long Beach–Anaheim, CA 12,150,996 11,789,487 361,509 3.07
    16 Orlando, FL 1,510,516 1,157,431 353,085 30.51
    17 Seattle, WA 3,059,393 2,712,205 347,188 12.80
    18 Raleigh, NC 884,891 541,527 343,364 63.41
    19 Sacramento, CA 1,723,634 1,393,498 330,136 23.69
    20 Chicago, IL–IN 8,608,208 8,307,904 300,304 3.61
    21 Philadelphia, PA–NJ–DE–MD 5,441,567 5,149,079 292,488 5.68
    22 San Diego, CA 2,956,746 2,674,436 282,310 10.56
    23 Indianapolis, IN 1,487,483 1,218,919 268,564 22.03
    24 Portland, OR–WA 1,849,898 1,583,138 266,760 16.85
    25 Minneapolis–St. Paul, MN–WI 2,650,890 2,388,593 262,297 10.98
    26 Columbus, OH 1,368,035 1,133,193 234,842 20.72
    27 Nashville-Davidson, TN 969,587 749,935 219,652 29.29
    28 Murrieta–Temecula–Menifee, CA 441,546 229,810 211,736 92.14
    29 McAllen, TX 728,825 523,144 205,681 39.32
    30 Cape Coral, FL 530,290 329,757 200,533 60.81

    Rate of Population Growth

    Thirty six cities had a growth rate of more than 50 percent between 2000 and 2010, a decade not that fabulous in economic growth!  Only three of these are independent metropolises of over a half-million: Charlotte and Raleigh, NC, and Austin, TX. With growth numbers and rates of 491000 (65%), 343000 (63%), and 460000 (51%)—clearly places on the move up. The others fall more or less into these categories: (please see table 3 for a list of all 35).

    Satellite places to larger urban areas: 21 places
    Smaller regional capitals or centers: 10 place

    The superstars in rate of growth were McKinney, TX (Dallas satellite), 212% growth; Avondale, AZ (Phoenix suburb), 190%; The Woodlands, TX (Houston satellite), 168%; Lady Lake, FL (Orlando satellite), 123%; West Bend, WI (Milwaukee satellite, 106%); El Centro , CA (Imperial Valley center), 103%; and  Hilton Head, SC (retirement, etc.), 101%.

    Table 3: Greatest Percent Gains
    Urbanized Area Name  2010 Population 2000 Population Change % Change
    1 McKinney, TX 170,030 54,525 115,505 211.84
    2 Avondale, AZ 197,041 67,875 129,166 190.30
    3 The Woodlands, TX 239,938 89,445 150,493 168.25
    4 Lady Lake, FL 112,991 50,721 62,270 122.77
    5 West Bend, WI 68,444 33,288 35,156 105.61
    6 El Centro, CA 107,672 52,954 54,718 103.33
    7 Hilton Head Island, SC 68,998 34,400 34,598 100.58
    8 Temecula–Murrieta, CA 441,546 229,810 211,736 92.14
    9 Concord, NC 214,881 115,057 99,824 86.76
    10 Visalia, CA 219,454 120,044 99,410 82.81
    11 Los Lunas, NM 63,758 36,101 27,657 76.61
    12 Myrtle Beach, SC 215,304 122,984 92,320 75.07
    13 Portsmouth, NH–ME 88,200 50,912 37,288 73.24
    14 Casa Grande, AZ 51,331 29,815 21,516 72.17
    15 Fayetteville–Springdale, AR 295,083 172,585 122,498 70.98
    16 Dover, DE 110,769 65,044 45,725 70.30
    17 Kissimmee, FL 314,071 186,667 127,404 68.25
    18 Salisbury, MD–DE 98,081 59,426 38,655 65.05
    19 Charlotte, NC–SC 1,249,442 758,927 490,515 64.63
    20 Victorville–Hesperia–Apple Valley, CA 328,454 200,436 128,018 63.87
    21 Raleigh, NC 884,891 541,527 343,364 63.41
    22 Manteca, CA 83,578 51,176 32,402 63.31
    23 Cape Coral, FL 530,290 329,757 200,533 60.81
    24 Provo–Orem, UT 482,819 303,680 179,139 58.99
    25 Nampa, ID 151,499 95,909 55,590 57.96
    26 St. George, UT 98,370 62,630 35,740 57.07
    27 Cartersville, GA 52,477 33,685 18,792 55.79
    28 Hammond, LA 67,629 43,458 24,171 55.62
    29 Mauldin–Simpsonville, SC 120,577 77,831 42,746 54.92
    30 Blacksburg, VA 88,542 57,236 31,306 54.70
    31 Lee’s Summit, MO 85,081 55,285 29,796 53.90
    32 Hagerstown, MD–WV–PA 182,696 120,326 62,370 51.83
    33 Santa Clarita, CA 258,653 170,481 88,172 51.72
    34 Austin, TX 1,362,416 901,920 460,496 51.06
    35 Daphne–Fairhope, AL 57,383 38,110 19,273 50.57

    Losers

    Urban growth is the expected norm, but not all areas of the country prospered 2000-2010. What kinds of place lost population and why? See Table 4 for a list of larger absolute and percent losses. Despite the comeback of the automobile industry, Detroit experienced the greatest loss, arguably because much of the industry has moved to the non-union and lower wage South. New Orleans had the second biggest loss, with almost an 11 percent loss, recovering only gradually from hurricane Katrina. Partly race or perhaps more a legacy of poverty and inept governance?  Other large numerical losses were in rust belt industrial and mining cities, such as Buffalo, Youngstown and Pittsburgh and Charleston, WV.  At least one was quite different: Seaside-Monterey CA, with losses due to reduced military operations as well as a generally weak California economy.

    High rates of losses were mostly in the same places, but included several smaller industrial towns in Ohio, Indiana and Pennsylvania.

    Table 4: Greatest Percent Losses  and Greatest Absolute Losses
    Relative posses
    Urbanized Area Name  2010 Population 2000 Population Change % Change
    1 Mansfield, OH 75,250 79,698 -4,448 -5.58
    2 Lorain–Elyria, OH 180,956 193,586 -12,630 -6.52
    3 Pascagoula, MS 50,428 54,190 -3,762 -6.94
    4 Youngstown, OH–PA 387,550 417,437 -29,887 -7.16
    5 Wheeling, WV–OH 81,249 87,613 -6,364 -7.26
    6 Lompoc, CA 51,509 55,667 -4,158 -7.47
    7 Mayagüez, PR 109,572 119,350 -9,778 -8.19
    8 Hightstown, NJ 64,037 69,977 -5,940 -8.49
    9 Pine Bluff, AR 53,495 58,584 -5,089 -8.69
    10 Seaside–Monterey–Marina, CA 114,237 125,503 -11,266 -8.98
    11 Anderson, IN 88,133 97,038 -8,905 -9.18
    12 Johnstown, PA 69,014 76,113 -7,099 -9.33
    13 Saginaw, MI 126,265 140,985 -14,720 -10.44
    14 New Orleans, LA 899,703 1,009,283 -109,580 -10.86
    15 Uniontown–Connellsville, PA 51,370 58,442 -7,072 -12.10
    16 Yauco, PR 90,899 108,024 -17,125 -15.85
    17 Charleston, WV 153,199 182,991 -29,792 -16.28
    18 Lodi, CA 68,738 83,735 -14,997 -17.91
    19 Parkersburg, WV–OH 67,229 85,605 -18,376 -21.47
    20 Ponce, PR 149,539 195,037 -45,498 -23.33
    Absolute Losses
    Urbanized Area Name  2010 Population 2000 Population Change % Change
    1 Seaside–Monterey–Marina, CA 114,237 125,503 -11,266 -8.98
    2 Lorain–Elyria, OH 180,956 193,586 -12,630 -6.52
    3 Saginaw, MI 126,265 140,985 -14,720 -10.44
    4 Lodi, CA 68,738 83,735 -14,997 -17.91
    5 Yauco, PR 90,899 108,024 -17,125 -15.85
    6 Parkersburg, WV–OH 67,229 85,605 -18,376 -21.47
    7 Pittsburgh, PA 1,733,853 1,753,136 -19,283 -1.10
    8 Charleston, WV 153,199 182,991 -29,792 -16.28
    9 Youngstown, OH–PA 387,550 417,437 -29,887 -7.16
    10 Buffalo, NY 935,906 976,703 -40,797 -4.18
    11 Ponce, PR 149,539 195,037 -45,498 -23.33
    12 San Juan, PR 2,148,346 2,216,616 -68,270 -3.08
    13 New Orleans, LA 899,703 1,009,283 -109,580 -10.86
    14 Detroit, MI 3,734,090 3,903,377 -169,287 -4.34

    These statistics are also summarized in 5 maps – one showing the size and rate of growth of all urbanized areas, followed by maps of the largest 30 places, the 35 places with the highest absolute and highest relative growth, then a map of the largest absolute and percent losses.

    Density, Size and Location

    People are often surprised by the fact that the highest urban densities are not in the historic eastern cities but in newer western cities. Los Angeles, often called the epitome of sprawl, is in fact the densest urbanized area in the US, for the third straight census! Table 5 lists the densest urbanized areas and the densities of the largest areas.

    Table 5: Highest and lowest urban densisties
    Highest urbanzed area densities
    Place State Population (Thousands) Density
    Los Angeles CA 12,151 6,999
    San Francisco CA 3,281 6,266
    San Jose CA 1,664 5,820
    Delano CA 54 5,483
    New York NY 18,351 5,319
    Davis CA 73 5,157
    Lompoc CA 52 4,816
    Honolulu HI 802 4,716
    Woodland CA 56 4,551
    L:as Vegas NV 1,886 4,525
    Densities of largest places (not on above list)
    Chicago IL 8,608 3,524
    Miami FL 5,502 4,442
    Philladelphia PA 5,442 2,746
    Dallas TX 5,122 2,879
    Houston TX 4,944 2,979
    Washington DC DC 4,586 3,470
    Atlanta GA 4,515 1,707
    Boston MA 4,182 2,232
    Detroit MI 3,734 2,793
    Phoenix AZ 3,629 3,165
    Seattle WA 3,059 3,028
    Lowest density places
    Hickory NC 212 811
    Hammond LA 68 883
    Barnstable MA 247 890
    Gadsden AL 64 892
    Homosassa Spgs FL 81 895
    Anniston AL 80 920
    Los Lunas NM 64 921
    Spartanburg SC 181 952
    Hilton Head SC 69 1,020
    Anderson SC 76 1,022

    The remarkable story is that of the 10 densest areas, 9 are in the west, and 7 in the Golden State. Four of these are fairly small, another surprise. The only eastern city in the top 10 is New York, which is fairly sharply limited by the census. Los Angeles, San Francisco and San Jose are the three most densely settled areas. The main underlying reason is not just planning regulations, although these probably play a role, but the issue of providing water to developable land. Both are restricted. This is one reason why growth in the southwest tends to be relatively dense. These drier areas lack the local water supplies that enable the kind of low density sprawl typical of the historic eastern cities like, yes, Boston with a density of only 2231, less than one-third that of Los Angeles!!  Other large urban areas with lower densities include Chicago, Philadelphia, Detroit, Houston, Dallas and Atlanta, a mere 1707!

    The winners for low density are an interesting mix of satellite places, such as Hammond, Barnstable, Los Lunas, and independent places like Hickory, Gadsden and Anniston, AL, and Spartanburg and Anderson, SC, many in hilly Appalachian environments, with settlement limited to valley floors. This is why the density could be below 1000 per square mile, the usual demarcation point of urban densities. Several are rather resort-like, e.g., Barnstable, Hilton Head and Homosassa Springs.

    Even if our urban definition is a little generous, 80 percent of the population or 250 million persons is an impressive total. Most of us cannot escape the city, where most jobs and opportunities are. We need to live in cities and perhaps most of us love the city. So the settlement issue in our lives becomes what city to live in and where to live within that place.

    Richard Morrill is Professor Emeritus of Geography and Environmental Studies, University of Washington. His research interests include: political geography (voting behavior, redistricting, local governance), population/demography/settlement/migration, urban geography and planning, urban transportation (i.e., old fashioned generalist).

    Next: Megalopolis and its rivals.

    Los Angeles skyline photo by Bigstockphoto.com.

  • Enjoying the Kool-Aid in Omaha

    I left Santa Monica for Omaha less than 3 months before the collapse of the global financial infrastructure in September 2008. The impending problems in housing and credit markets – obvious from early 2007 and exacerbated by the pile-on effect of derivatives gone wild – were increasingly in the bank of my mind. I made the decision to leave the dense urban population center of southern California and head to a place where —as recently described in an episode of The Walking Dead – there is a small population and lots of guns. I figured if the world was going to fall apart (something short of being over-run by zombies but worse than a minor recession) I’d rather not be sitting with my back to the ocean and no boat.

    Omaha has turned out to be blessed. The farm economy is strong. It is home to 5 of the Fortune 500: ConAgra, Berkshire Hathaway, Union Pacific, Peter Kiewit Sons’ and Mutual of Omaha Insurance all call Omaha home. Best of all, Omaha is home to Warren Buffett – the Oracle of Omaha and financial genius of Wall Street, one of the world’s richest men, head of legendary Berkshire Hathaway and, best of all for me, patron of the arts, humanities, community and politics in Nebraska.

    We all hail Uncle Warren’s beneficence but we may not want to look too closely at where the money comes from – like the 15 percent return he’s earning on the $5 billion investment he made in Goldman Sachs the week before they got a $10 billion bailout; or the fact that Berkshire Hathaway was the largest shareholder in American Express Co. when they received $3.4 billion from Uncle Sam. Nebraska may be a red state but Buffett has chosen Democrats, like retiring Senator Ben Nelson, to service his economic agenda. According to data from the Federal Election Commission, Uncle Buffett’s political contributions go almost exclusively to Democrats. I could write a whole story just on what Ben Nelson has done for Nebraska, but to conserve space, let me just say “Cornhusker Kickback” – you get the picture. We have more roads, bridges, and military contractors than can likely be required in a state with a population of 2 million – about the same as the population of Manhattan. This in a place where rush hour means there is a car in front of you and you can see more than 12 cars on either side of the road – compare that to Los Angeles (see photos above). The one electoral vote from Nebraska that went to Obama in 2008 is the one that includes Uncle Buffett’s house.

    Author Peter Schweizer (Reason March 2012) describes Buffett using a “bootleggers and Baptists” comparison that’s too close to Immanuel Kant’s “Private vice, public virtue” dichotomy to be accurate. I think Uncle Buffett is much more open about his vices. He does his good works in public but clearly   publically influences his politicians. Buffett made that $5 billion investment in Goldman Sachs on September 23, 2008 – a week before Senator Nelson voted “aye” on the bailout that greatly enhanced Goldman’s value and protected it from the massive losses which would have resulted from the need to raise capital by liquidating assets at collapsing market prices. The Wall Street Bailout not only gave Goldman Sachs an infusion of capital but it also covered the credit default swap payments that Goldman Sachs demanded from American International Group (AIG) as it was going into bankruptcy.  Goldman’s share of the AIG bailout was $2.5 billion in credit default swap payments, plus $5.6 billion in payments from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and another $4.8 billion as “vig” for lending securities to AIG. That’s enough to cover the dividend payments to Buffett for 14 years with enough left over to pay back the principle. Ten percent rate of return with zero risk – not the risk/reward tradeoff I learned about in college.

    Most Omaha residents know Buffett’s political savvy and appreciate his understated style. Ben Nelson does. He bragged at a Chamber of Commerce meeting that he took advice from Warren before he voted for the Wall Street Bailout. He completely ignored the irony: a Senator asks a banker for advice on a bank bailout, the banker encourages the senator to payout $750 billion of taxpayer money to banks. This is something much less benign than drinkin’ likker on Saturday night and singin’ in the choir on Sunday morning.

    Ben Nelson is among the members of congress who invested in shares of Berkshire Hathaway before passing the Bailout that Benefited Buffett – a move that would probably have gotten them fired from Berkshire Hathaway. The very fact that Buffett was reported as saying something so banal as “I’d never be so brave as to try to influence congress” is all you need to hear to know that he’s not telling the truth. According the Congressional testimony of former- Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (SigTARP) Neil Barofsky, and a report from the Government Accountability Office, the TARP bailout program was rigged. Firms with “political connections,” were more likely to get TARP funds. This was reported to Congress at hearings and reported here in 2009:

    “Treasury, the New York Federal Reserve and even Presidential Economic Advisor Larry Summers may be passing information to their friends that can be used for financial gain, giving positions in bailout programs to business associates, and engaging in ‘too cordial relationships’ with bailout recipients.”

    We may object to Warren Buffet’s manipulations on moral ground but residents of Omaha and Nebraska get to enjoy his largess. The procession of bailouts is anathema to many here. Uncle Buffett may live halfway from Wall Street but he is an insider in the classic sense. His huge bets on municipal bonds mean he needs to work to keep cities and counties from bankruptcy. In March 2008, just months after credit markets began to seize up, Buffett told CNBC he had “written 206 transactions in the last three weeks” which were default swaps on municipal bonds – the financing used by cities, counties and states to fund everything from building schools to running services. Since that means Buffett will have to payout if the municipalities experience “credit events” (like missing bond payments), he has the incentive to push for another bailout. The virtue? The bailout will also benefit the millions of people who live and work in places like Detroit, Illinois, and Jefferson County, Alabama. The vice? He controls enough bank stock to have managed a refinance for those municipalities without siphoning off significant premiums for profit. Buffett is willing to pay to get a government that caters to profligate cities and offers bailouts to companies in his industry, too. Buffett hosts a fundraiser for Obama’s political campaign and Obama names a tax-reform after Buffett – one hand washes the other, all done in the bright sunshine of Sunday morning.

    There is no denying that Buffett is smart with his money. In the same way, it would be foolish to suggest that he does this for some personal gratification instead of for profit. His long-hailed strategy of “value investing” has now gone by the wayside in favor of a strategy that can only be described as “grab the profit while you can but don’t stray too far from the government teat.”  When the music stops Uncle Buffett will get bailed out, again, by his good friend Uncle Sam.

    So I’m not disagreeing with the point being made by Shweitzer and others that “America’s favorite billionaire plays politics to make money.” I’m not even disagreeing that this is bad for America. In fact, I side with Nebraska’s Republican Governor Dave Heineman when it comes to the doings of Buffett and Nelson: If it’s bad for America in the short run, it can’t be good for Nebraska long term. I don’t agree with what Buffett and Nelson have been doing for Nebraska but I am enjoying the benefits. And maybe that’s your answer – move into their neighborhoods, enjoy the protection, but whatever you do – don’t drink the Kool-Aid.*

    *Wikipedia cites a reporter from the Washington Post who wrote about seeing “’packets of unopened Flavor Aid’ scattered in the dust in Guyana….”, not actual Kool-Aid. (Source: Krause, Charles A. (Dec. 17, 1978). "Jonestown Is an Eerie Ghost Town Now.") As an aside, Kool-Aid was invented in the 1920s by a Nebraska mail-order entrepreneur.

    Susanne Trimbath, Ph.D. is CEO and Chief Economist of STP Advisory Services. Dr. Trimbath’s credits include appearances on national television and radio programs and the Emmy® Award nominated Bloomberg report Phantom Shares. She appears in four documentaries on the financial crisis, including Stock Shock: the Rise of Sirius XM and Collapse of Wall Street Ethics and the newly released Wall Street Conspiracy. Dr. Trimbath was formerly Senior Research Economist at the Milken Institute. She served as Senior Advisor on United States Agency for International Development capital markets projects in Russia, Romania and Ukraine. Dr. Trimbath teaches graduate and undergraduate finance and economics.

    Lead Photo: 7:15pm May 21, 2011, Santa Monica Freeway, Eastbound © STP Advisory Services, LLC

  • Still Moving to the Suburbs and Exurbs: The 2011 Census Estimates

    The new 2011 Census Bureau county and metropolitan area population estimates indicate that Americans are staying put. Over the past year, 590,000 people moved between the nation’s counties. This domestic migration (people moving within the nation) compares to an annual rate of 1,080,000 between the 2000 and 2009. Inter-county domestic migration peaked in 2006 at nearly 1,620,000 and has been falling since that time (Figure 1). The continuing low rate of domestic migration has been reinforced by the economic malaise that has kept job and income growth well below levels that would be expected in a more genuine recovery.

    Yet the nation has continued to grow. With less domestic migration, natural growth (births minus deaths) and considerable, but slower international migration, growth over the past year has been more in proportion to total population. The movement between counties within major metropolitan areas has become less of a factor. Predictably, there the usual doom and gloom reports  about suburbs and exurbs and how poorly they are doing compared to before, and how people are returning to the cities (Note 1). As usual, the data shows no such thing, as people continue to move from core counties in greater numbers than others move in (See Note 2 on county classifications).

    Domestic Migration: Despite the higher gasoline prices and the illusions of a press that is often anti-suburban, both the suburbs and the exurbs continued to attract people from elsewhere in the nation. The core counties, which contain the core cities, continued to lose domestic migrants to other parts of the country, principally to the suburbs and the exurbs of the large metropolitan areas.

    Over the past year, the core counties of major metropolitan areas lost 67,000 domestic migrants (people move between a metropolitan area and somewhere else in the nation). Suburban counties gained approximately 72,000 domestic migrants, while exurban counties gained 49,000 domestic migrants (Figure 2). Because of their lower population base, exurban counties had the highest relative rate of net domestic migration, at 0.34% of their 2010 population. This is more than three times the rate of the suburban counties (0.11%) and far higher than the minus 0.09% of the core counties (Figure 3). Thus, the overall slower rate of growth among exurban counties was due to a lower natural growth rate and less international migration, not the result of any losses to the core. The same is true, to a lesser extent, of the suburban counties.


    Overall, the major metropolitan areas gained 48,500 domestic migrants between 2010 and 2011. By contrast, between 2000 and 2009, the major metropolitan areas lost, on average, nearly 200,000 domestic migrants to the rest of the nation each year. The huge domestic out migration in the last decade has been associated with the housing bubble. Less affordable housing markets lost 3.2 million domestic migrants between 2000 and 2009. More affordable markets gained 1.7 million domestic migrants. This was not enough to negate the losses in the higher cost markets, and major metropolitan markets lost 1.5 million domestic migrants overall.

    Natural Growth: As the grim economic times induced people to stay put, core counties grew marginally faster than suburban and exurban counties principally because of higher natural growth rates, which is the net of births minus deaths. More than 70% of the higher population in core counties was from natural growth. Natural growth was less of a factor in the suburban counties, at 60%. In the exurban counties, natural growth accounted for only 47% of the population growth (Table 1). The higher core county natural growth rates are especially evident where there are large foreign born populations, due to their generally higher birth rates (such as Los Angeles, Dallas-Fort Worth, Houston, Austin and Riverside-San Bernardino, as well as Raleigh and Salt Lake City).

    International Migration: The other component of growth was international migration, which contributed 38% of the growth in core counties and 29% of the growth in suburban counties. International migration was much less important in the exurban counties, contributing only 15% of the growth (Table 1)

    Table 1
    Major Metropolitan Areas
    Components of Population Change: 2010-2011: Summary by Sector
     Net Domestic Migration   Net International Migration   Natural Increase (Births Minus Deaths) 
    Core Counties -8.5% 37.6% 70.8%
    Suburban Counties 11.2% 29.0% 59.8%
    Exurban Counties 37.9% 14.5% 47.4%
    Multi-County Major Metropolitan Areas 3.5% 32.1% 64.3%
    Single County Major Metropolitan Areas -10.9% 34.5% 76.7%
    Major Metropolitan Areas with More Than 1 County 3.0% 32.2% 64.7%
    Single County Major Metropolitan Areas: San Diego and Las Vegas

     

    The Gainers: The fastest growing major metropolitan areas were dominated by the four largest Texas metropolitan areas. Austin (3.2%), Dallas-Fort Worth (2.0%), Houston (1.9%) and San Antonio (1.9%) were all among the five fastest growing. Raleigh placed second, with a one-year growth rate of 2.3%. The top five numeric gainers in domestic migration were in all in Texas or Florida — Dallas-Fort Worth (39,000), Miami (36,000), Austin (31,000), Tampa-St. Petersburg (27,000) and Houston (21,000). The much improved housing affordability in Florida seems likely to be a factor in the recovery of Miami and Tampa-St. Petersburg. Further, Houston became the second Texas metropolitan area to exceed Philadelphia in population, following Dallas-Fort Worth in the last decade. Texas thus becomes the first state to place two metropolitan areas in the five largest in the nation (Table 2).

    Table 2
    Major Metropolitan Areas: Population
    Population: 2010-2011
    Metropolitan Area 2010 2011 Change % Change
    New York, NY-NJ-PA        18,919,649        19,015,900                  96,251 0.51%
    Los Angeles, CA        12,844,371        12,944,801                100,430 0.78%
    Chicago, IL-IN-WI          9,472,584          9,504,753                  32,169 0.34%
    Dallas-Fort Worth, TX          6,400,511          6,526,548                126,037 1.97%
    Houston. TX          5,976,470          6,086,538                110,068 1.84%
    Philadelphia, PA-NJ-DE-MD          5,971,589          5,992,414                  20,825 0.35%
    Washington, DC-VA-MD-WV          5,609,150          5,703,948                  94,798 1.69%
    Miami, FL          5,578,080          5,670,125                  92,045 1.65%
    Atlanta, GA          5,286,296          5,359,205                  72,909 1.38%
    Boston, MA-NH          4,559,372          4,591,112                  31,740 0.70%
    San Francisco-Oakland, CA          4,343,381          4,391,037                  47,656 1.10%
    Riverside-San Bernardino, CA          4,245,005          4,304,997                  59,992 1.41%
    Detroit. MI          4,290,722          4,285,832                   (4,890) -0.11%
    Phoenix, AZ          4,209,070          4,263,236                  54,166 1.29%
    Seattle, WA          3,447,886          3,500,026                  52,140 1.51%
    Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI          3,285,913          3,318,486                  32,573 0.99%
    San Diego, CA          3,105,115          3,140,069                  34,954 1.13%
    Tampa-St. Petersburg, FL          2,788,151          2,824,724                  36,573 1.31%
    St. Louis, MO-IL          2,814,722          2,817,355                     2,633 0.09%
    Baltimore, MD          2,714,546          2,729,110                  14,564 0.54%
    Denver, CO          2,554,569          2,599,504                  44,935 1.76%
    Pittsburgh, PA          2,357,951          2,359,746                     1,795 0.08%
    Portland, OR-WA          2,232,896          2,262,605                  29,709 1.33%
    San Antonio, TX          2,153,891          2,194,927                  41,036 1.91%
    Sacramento, CA          2,154,583          2,176,235                  21,652 1.00%
    Orlando, FL          2,139,615          2,171,360                  31,745 1.48%
    Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN          2,132,415          2,138,038                     5,623 0.26%
    Cleveland, OH          2,075,540          2,068,283                   (7,257) -0.35%
    Kansas City,  MO-KS          2,039,766          2,052,676                  12,910 0.63%
    Las Vegas, NV          1,953,927          1,969,975                  16,048 0.82%
    San Jose, CA          1,841,787          1,865,450                  23,663 1.28%
    Columbus, OH          1,840,584          1,858,464                  17,880 0.97%
    Charlotte, NC-SC          1,763,969          1,795,472                  31,503 1.79%
    Austin, TX          1,728,247          1,783,519                  55,272 3.20%
    Indianapolis, IN          1,760,826          1,778,568                  17,742 1.01%
    Virginia Beach (Norfolk), VA-NC          1,674,502          1,679,894                     5,392 0.32%
    Nashville, TN          1,594,885          1,617,142                  22,257 1.40%
    Providence, RI-MA          1,601,065          1,600,224                      (841) -0.05%
    Milwaukee, WI          1,556,953          1,562,216                     5,263 0.34%
    Jacksonville, FL          1,348,702          1,360,251                  11,549 0.86%
    Memphis, TN-MS-AR          1,318,089          1,325,605                     7,516 0.57%
    Louisville, KY-IN          1,285,891          1,294,849                     8,958 0.70%
    Oklahoma City, OK          1,258,111          1,278,053                  19,942 1.59%
    Richmond, VA          1,260,396          1,269,380                     8,984 0.71%
    Hartford, CT          1,212,491          1,213,255                        764 0.06%
    New Orleans, LA          1,173,572          1,191,089                  17,517 1.49%
    Raleigh, NC          1,137,297          1,163,515                  26,218 2.31%
    Salt Lake City, UT          1,128,269          1,145,905                  17,636 1.56%
    Buffalo, NY          1,135,293          1,134,039                   (1,254) -0.11%
    Birmingham, AL          1,129,068          1,132,264                     3,196 0.28%
    Rochester, NY          1,054,723          1,055,278                        555 0.05%
    Total      167,462,456      169,067,997             1,605,541 0.96%
    Data derived from US Bureau of the Census
    Major Metropolitan Areas: Over 1,000,000 Population

     

    The Losers: Four metropolitan areas, Detroit, Cleveland, Providence and Buffalo suffered small population losses. Pittsburgh had a small gain, but was alone in having an excess of deaths over births. New York again led the nation in its net domestic migration loss, at 99,000. Chicago lost 54,000 and Los Angeles lost 51,000 residents to other areas of the country between 2010 and 2011, while Detroit lost 24,000. Domestic migration data is available for New York City because it is composed of five counties. New York City lost 57,000 domestic migrants (Table 3).

    Table 3
    Major Metropolitan Areas
    Components of Population Change: 2010-2011
     Net Domestic Migration   Net International Migration   Natural Increase (Births Minus Deaths)  Total Components of Change (Note)
    New York, NY-NJ-PA              (98,975)                83,322                112,336               96,683
    Los Angeles, CA              (50,549)                54,725                  96,150             100,326
    Chicago, IL-IN-WI              (53,908)                24,422                  61,483               31,997
    Dallas-Fort Worth, TX                39,021                23,291                  63,504             125,816
    Houston. TX                21,580                24,105                  64,363             110,048
    Philadelphia, PA-NJ-DE-MD              (13,133)                11,413                  22,769               21,049
    Washington, DC-VA-MD-WV                21,517                24,872                  48,235               94,624
    Miami, FL                36,191                35,215                  20,440               91,846
    Atlanta, GA                12,419                17,370                  42,908               72,697
    Boston, MA-NH                 (1,627)                15,494                  18,143               32,010
    San Francisco-Oakland, CA                  5,880                17,996                  23,939               47,815
    Riverside-San Bernardino, CA                15,131                  9,065                  35,826               60,022
    Detroit. MI              (24,170)                  7,468                  11,734                (4,968)
    Phoenix, AZ                  5,585                15,866                  32,847               54,298
    Seattle, WA                17,598                12,228                  22,280               52,106
    Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI                      536                  7,832                  24,296               32,664
    San Diego, CA                      816                  9,591                  24,703               35,110
    Tampa-St. Petersburg, FL                27,157                  6,857                     2,318               36,332
    St. Louis, MO-IL              (10,260)                  2,671                  10,256                 2,667
    Baltimore, MD                 (1,341)                  5,004                  10,941               14,604
    Denver, CO                19,565                  5,204                  19,997               44,766
    Pittsburgh, PA                  3,740                  1,426                   (3,260)                 1,906
    Portland, OR-WA                11,388                  4,806                  13,511               29,705
    San Antonio, TX                19,515                  3,841                  17,486               40,842
    Sacramento, CA                  2,856                  6,173                  12,659               21,688
    Orlando, FL                10,394                  9,767                  11,557               31,718
    Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN                 (7,149)                  2,152                  10,624                 5,627
    Cleveland, OH              (12,521)                  1,896                     3,344                (7,281)
    Kansas City,  MO-KS                 (2,820)                  3,009                  12,705               12,894
    Las Vegas, NV                 (6,353)                  8,007                  14,395               16,049
    San Jose, CA                 (2,704)                11,072                  15,376               23,744
    Columbus, OH                  2,219                  3,329                  12,390               17,938
    Charlotte, NC-SC                13,778                  4,581                  13,038               31,397
    Austin, TX                30,669                  6,134                  18,085               54,888
    Indianapolis, IN                  1,940                  2,953                  12,827               17,720
    Virginia Beach (Norfolk), VA-NC                 (7,086)                  2,382                  10,044                 5,340
    Nashville, TN                  9,323                  3,015                     9,867               22,205
    Providence, RI-MA                 (6,254)                  2,487                     2,940                   (827)
    Milwaukee, WI                 (4,862)                  1,796                     8,384                 5,318
    Jacksonville, FL                  2,911                  1,935                     6,691               11,537
    Memphis, TN-MS-AR                 (2,933)                  1,841                     8,615                 7,523
    Louisville, KY-IN                  1,886                  1,711                     5,400                 8,997
    Oklahoma City, OK                  8,746                  2,228                     8,904               19,878
    Richmond, VA                  1,546                  1,965                     5,519                 9,030
    Hartford, CT                 (4,749)                  3,066                     2,493                     810
    New Orleans, LA                10,153                  1,563                     5,630               17,346
    Raleigh, NC                13,262                  3,228                     9,608               26,098
    Salt Lake City, UT                      915                  3,090                  13,674               17,679
    Buffalo, NY                 (2,558)                  1,185                        176                (1,197)
    Birmingham, AL                 (2,452)                  1,245                     4,421                 3,214
    Rochester, NY                 (3,320)                  1,235                     2,650                     565
    Total                48,513              517,129             1,039,221         1,604,863
    3.0% 32.2% 64.8% 100.0%
    Data derived from US Bureau of the Census
    Major Metropolitan Areas: Over 1,000,000 Population
    Excludes San Diego and Las Vegas, which have only a single county

     

    Captive v. Discretionary Markets? One year’s data does not make a trend, especially in unusual times. Until the nation returns to normal economic growth, many young who would otherwise move are staying put, as well as young families that would be looking for larger houses. The driving factor in the more modest domestic migration trends observed today could well be necessity rather than desire.

    Wendell Cox is a Visiting Professor, Conservatoire National des Arts et Metiers, Paris and the author of “War on the Dream: How Anti-Sprawl Policy Threatens the Quality of Life”

    —-

    Note 1: It is a misconception that suburbs and exurbs have grown principally because people have moved from cities. In fact, most suburban and exurban growth has been from smaller towns and rural areas. See Cities and Suburbs: The Unexpected Truth. Components of change data (domestic migration, international migration and natural growth) is available only at the county level. Thus, city or municipality data is only available where a municipality and a county are combined.

    Note 2: The core county contains all or most of the largest historical core municipality (see Suburbanized Core Cities) in the metropolitan area, except in New York, where all five counties that comprise the city of New York are classified as core counties. The suburban counties are those designated by the Bureau of the Census as central counties, but exclude the core counties. The exurban counties are as classified by the Bureau of the Census.

    Note 3: The largest historical core municipalities comprise slightly more than 55 percent of the core county population (both figures combined).

    Photo: Chicago (West Wacker Drive) By Author

  • Census Bureau Releases Latest Take on America’s Urban Areas

    We are used to dealing with jurisdictional boundaries when assessing and comparing cities. These are often either municipal areas or metropolitan statistical areas (which are based on entire counties). But these can have little relevance to the amount of area in a given city-region that is actually urban in nature. This makes apples to apples across regions difficult.

    Once a decade though the Census Bureau gives us a more detailed look. They release definitions of so-called “urbanized areas” that attempt to look at just the amount of land that is actually urban in form. In theory this would allow for better apples to apples comparisons between regions. Unfortunately, most data is not sliced this way, so we only get this glimpse. Here’s the map of the new 2010 urbanized area definitions:

    Wendell Cox has a breakdown of the largest urbanized areas that includes density. He also published a historical review that tracks urbanized area population and density since 1950 for the largest city regions. For more thoughts on urbanized areas, see Nate Berg’s take over at Atlantic Cities.

    I don’t want to try to offer a complete analysis of this right now, but one thing that really jumped out at me was the very low densities of some southern boomtowns like Atlanta (1,707/sq. mi) and Charlotte (1,685/sq. mi.). Contrast with even Houston (2,979/sq. mi.) and Dallas (2,879/sq. mi) and see the difference. Atlanta is already showing serious signs of weakness vs. the Texas mega-metros and I wonder if this is part of the reason why. It also makes me wonder if Charlotte might someday suffer in a similar manner if its growth ever flames out.

  • Peyton Manning for President?

    Is the free agency of Colts quarterback Peyton Manning, or the trade of the evangelic Tim Tebow to the New York Jets a far more compelling story than anything yet to emerge from the presidential election news?

    Compared with Peyton Manning’s dignified handling of his neck injuries and his complicated departure from Indianapolis, Mitt Romney seems about as stately as those hair-rinsed, middle-aged men who show up on halftime advertisements with that Viagra look in their eye. (In Romney’s case he is trying to get a few primary delegations to head upstairs.)

    Even those seeking a greater religious presence in public life seem to find the faith of All-American Tim Tebow more engaging than the awkward positions of Rick Santorum, who sounds like he would pass out scarlet letters after his inauguration. And the YouTube Tebowing craze has breathed more fun and light into Christianity than any of Newt Gingrich’s C-SPAN homilies.

    Ron Paul, who speaks in complete sentences about Federal Reserve economics and the national surveillance state, must wish he could command the respect of a retired football coach, someone like John Madden, so that people would listen when he is drawing his Xs and Os to explain the gold standard.

    Had Peyton Manning tearfully retired from the Colts and announced his intention to campaign for president, I am sure he could have given Romney a run for his money. At least no one would begrudge him his millions. Romney’s two-Cadillac wife, $10,000 friendly bets, and country club bearing have doomed him with large swathes of the electorate. By contrast, Manning was able to spin four neck surgeries, a 36-year-old arm, and bad playoff performances into a Denver contract that could pay him $96 million over five years.

    When he signed his deal, you would have thought he had won a Nobel or negotiated a truce in Syria, such was the public acclaim, relief, and satisfaction that he would not have to face the off-season playing fantasy football or that he might be down to his last $200 million.

    The reason the electorate cares more about its quarterbacks than its candidates is because those running for office all sound like team owners, promising everyone season tickets to the American dream, while siphoning the revenue from the concessions and the sky boxes. At least NFL quarterbacks have to play the games and get their uniforms dirty.

    To be sure, professional football organizations no more want to dilute their market share than Democrats or Republicans want to open up the U.S. electoral system to all the small parties — greens, social democrats, Christian socialists, trade unionists, nationalists, etc. — that you find in European countries.

    The reason that the Broncos can afford to gamble $100 million on Peyton Manning’s neck surgeon is because professional football enjoys antitrust exemption, and collectively cashes the dividends of a market rigged more closely than one of Leland Stanford’s freight lines.

    With the blessings of Congress, football hires indentured servants (the draft), limits ownership franchises (the protected guild of the NFL), shares cable contracts, and raids public treasuries to build billion dollar stadiums that only benefit the owners (and perhaps a few beer vendors). Think of the NFL as just another political action committee.

    No wonder Mitt Romney campaigns for president as if auditioning to become the league commissioner, who serves at the grace of the owners and whose job it is speak sternly on 60 Minutes about “the integrity of the game.” In recent years, the real NFL Commissioner, Roger Goodell, has taken to fining players for violent hits and suspending coaches for tolerating bounties on opposing players.

    NFL careers are nasty, brutish and short. Who would pay NFL stars tens of millions if on any given Sunday the game looked like Ultimate Frisbee? As a result of football’s violence, ex-NFL players are prone to dementia and other crippling diseases, with little more support from the league than a handshake when their time on the field is up.

    Listening the bounty tapes, the NFL has no more claim to “integrity” than a hockey enforcer, but the façade is maintained that the league promotes “sport” and “fairness,” even if the Saints’ locker room was home to the mentality of a hit squad.

    Just as Goodell’s job is to preside over a closed chop shop but make it all look and sound like Chariots of Fire, President Obama is the league commissioner of the Fortune 500. That team can only dream of football’s antitrust exemption, even if it got in on some revenue sharing through the stimulus plan and TARP bailouts.

    If the president, even in a minor way, were serious about creating jobs, he could deregulate the football industry by ending the antitrust exemption and allow other owners and cities to form their own teams. Why does the US limit the supply of its professional football?

    Going long, the president could campaign against state and local subsidies ($20 billion by some accounts) for white-elephant stadiums that benefit only political cronies. He could take on the cable television oligopoly and let anyone with a webcam “broadcast” games that should be considered news events, not pay-per-view entertainments. He could also urge that college players be paid, as they work hard at many things, although school usually isn’t one of them.

    The reason that the football establishment has trouble tolerating quarterback Tim Tebow is because he represents the sandlot game as it was played before the sport became a subsidiary of the advertising business — a colorful if violent spectacle around which to plug Taco Bell or Coors Lite. (Players are best understood as animated billboards.) His passes may flutter like wounded ducks, but he’s a free spirit. Tebow is closer to democratic rule than to the corporate hierarchy of the football industry, no doubt one reason that the Broncos moved him along to the Jets, who at least have credentials in preferring anarchy to victories.

    In the presidential election, candidates Romney and Obama will raise and spend more than $1 trillion, and speak endlessly about the “integrity of the country,” even as the CIA posts bounties on the heads of American citizens living abroad. (Maybe disgraced Saints coach Sean Payton should pass his suspended year in Yemen? At least there his talents would not be wasted.)

    An election between Manning and Tebow would at least be fun, instructive, engaging, and offer clear choices. Manning would be the voice of protected industry, in which team owners or corporate sponsors are always munificent and wise, and always in the game for yet another government protection racket under the banner of competition. By contrast, Tebow would stand for a grassroots revival, prairie chapels, and the sense that the game has yet to be fixed.

    Flickr Photo by Tennessee Journalist: Peyton Manning at the podium, looking presidential.

    Matthew Stevenson is the author of Remembering the Twentieth Century Limited, a collection of historical travel essays, and recently edited Rules of the Game: The Best Sports Writing from Harper’s Magazine. His next book is Whistle-Stopping America.